Credibility analysis of textual claims with explainable evidence

Despite being a vast resource of valuable information, the Web has been polluted by the spread of false claims. Increasing hoaxes, fake news, and misleading information on the Web have given rise to many fact-checking websites that manually assess these doubtful claims. However, the rapid speed and large scale of misinformation spread have become the bottleneck for manual verification. This calls for credibility assessment tools that can automate this verification process. Prior works in this domain make strong assumptions about the structure of the claims and the communities where they are made. Most importantly, black-box techniques proposed in prior works lack the ability to explain why a certain statement is deemed credible or not. To address these limitations, this dissertation proposes a general framework for automated credibility assessment that does not make any assumption about the structure or origin of the claims. Specifically, we propose a feature-based model, which automatically retrieves relevant articles about the given claim and assesses its credibility by capturing the mutual interaction between the language style of the relevant articles, their stance towards the claim, and the trustworthiness of the underlying web sources. We further enhance our credibility assessment approach and propose a neural-network-based model. Unlike the feature-based model, this model does not rely on feature engineering and external lexicons. Both our models make their assessments interpretable by extracting explainable evidence from judiciously selected web sources. We utilize our models and develop a Web interface, CredEye, which enables users to automatically assess the credibility of a textual claim and dissect into the assessment by browsing through judiciously and automatically selected evidence snippets. In addition, we study the problem of stance classification and propose a neural-network-based model for predicting the stance of diverse user perspectives regarding the controversial claims. Given a controversial claim and a user comment, our stance classification model predicts whether the user comment is supporting or opposing the claim.Das Web ist eine riesige Quelle wertvoller Informationen, allerdings wurde es durch die Verbreitung von Falschmeldungen verschmutzt. Eine zunehmende Anzahl an Hoaxes, Falschmeldungen und irreführenden Informationen im Internet haben viele Websites hervorgebracht, auf denen die Fakten überprüft und zweifelhafte Behauptungen manuell bewertet werden. Die rasante Verbreitung großer Mengen von Fehlinformationen sind jedoch zum Engpass für die manuelle Überprüfung geworden. Dies erfordert Tools zur Bewertung der Glaubwürdigkeit, mit denen dieser Überprüfungsprozess automatisiert werden kann. In früheren Arbeiten in diesem Bereich werden starke Annahmen gemacht über die Struktur der Behauptungen und die Portale, in denen sie gepostet werden. Vor allem aber können die Black-Box-Techniken, die in früheren Arbeiten vorgeschlagen wurden, nicht erklären, warum eine bestimmte Aussage als glaubwürdig erachtet wird oder nicht. Um diesen Einschränkungen zu begegnen, wird in dieser Dissertation ein allgemeines Framework für die automatisierte Bewertung der Glaubwürdigkeit vorgeschlagen, bei dem keine Annahmen über die Struktur oder den Ursprung der Behauptungen gemacht werden. Insbesondere schlagen wir ein featurebasiertes Modell vor, das automatisch relevante Artikel zu einer bestimmten Behauptung abruft und deren Glaubwürdigkeit bewertet, indem die gegenseitige Interaktion zwischen dem Sprachstil der relevanten Artikel, ihre Haltung zur Behauptung und der Vertrauenswürdigkeit der zugrunde liegenden Quellen erfasst wird. Wir verbessern unseren Ansatz zur Bewertung der Glaubwürdigkeit weiter und schlagen ein auf neuronalen Netzen basierendes Modell vor. Im Gegensatz zum featurebasierten Modell ist dieses Modell nicht auf Feature-Engineering und externe Lexika angewiesen. Unsere beiden Modelle machen ihre Einschätzungen interpretierbar, indem sie erklärbare Beweise aus sorgfältig ausgewählten Webquellen extrahieren. Wir verwenden unsere Modelle zur Entwicklung eines Webinterfaces, CredEye, mit dem Benutzer die Glaubwürdigkeit einer Behauptung in Textform automatisch bewerten und verstehen können, indem sie automatisch ausgewählte Beweisstücke einsehen. Darüber hinaus untersuchen wir das Problem der Positionsklassifizierung und schlagen ein auf neuronalen Netzen basierendes Modell vor, um die Position verschiedener Benutzerperspektiven in Bezug auf die umstrittenen Behauptungen vorherzusagen. Bei einer kontroversen Behauptung und einem Benutzerkommentar sagt unser Einstufungsmodell voraus, ob der Benutzerkommentar die Behauptung unterstützt oder ablehnt

Veracity Roadmap: Is Big Data Objective, Truthful and Credible?

This paper argues that big data can possess different characteristics, which affect its quality. Depending on its origin, data processing technologies, and methodologies used for data collection and scientific discoveries, big data can have biases, ambiguities, and inaccuracies which need to be identified and accounted for to reduce inference errors and improve the accuracy of generated insights. Big data veracity is now being recognized as a necessary property for its utilization, complementing the three previously established quality dimensions (volume, variety, and velocity), But there has been little discussion of the concept of veracity thus far. This paper provides a roadmap for theoretical and empirical definitions of veracity along with its practical implications. We explore veracity across three main dimensions: 1) objectivity/subjectivity, 2) truthfulness/deception, 3) credibility/implausibility – and propose to operationalize each of these dimensions with either existing computational tools or potential ones, relevant particularly to textual data analytics. We combine the measures of veracity dimensions into one composite index – the big data veracity index. This newly developed veracity index provides a useful way of assessing systematic variations in big data quality across datasets with textual information. The paper contributes to the big data research by categorizing the range of existing tools to measure the suggested dimensions, and to Library and Information Science (LIS) by proposing to account for heterogeneity of diverse big data, and to identify information quality dimensions important for each big data type

A literature review. Introduction to the special issue

UIDB/00183/2020 UIDP/00183/2020 PTDC/FER-FIL/28278/2017 CHIST-ERA/0002/2019Argumentation schemes [35, 80, 91] are a relatively recent notion that continues an extremely ancient debate on one of the foundations of human reasoning, human comprehension, and obviously human argumentation, i.e., the topics. To understand the revolutionary nature of Walton’s work on this subject matter, it is necessary to place it in the debate that it continues and contributes to, namely a view of logic that is much broader than the formalistic perspective that has been adopted from the 20th century until nowadays. With his book Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning, Walton attempted to start a dialogue between three different fields or views on human reasoning – one (argumentation theory) very recent, one (dialectics) very ancient and with a very long tradition, and one (formal logic) relatively recent, but dominating in philosophy. Argumentation schemes were proposed as dialectical instruments, in the sense that they represented arguments not only as formal relations, but also as pragmatic inferences, as they at the same time depend on what the interlocutors share and accept in a given dialogical circumstance, and affect their dialogical relation. In this introduction, the notion of argumentation scheme will be analyzed in detail, showing its different dimensions and its defining features which make them an extremely useful instrument in Artificial Intelligence. This theoretical background will be followed by a literature review on the uses of the schemes in computing, aimed at identifying the most important areas and trends, the most promising proposals, and the directions of future research.publishersversionpublishe